skill_auto_calibrate_mouse_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not explain behavior beyond stating it's a procedure. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which contradicts the notion of calibration possibly modifying system state. The description fails to clarify this discrepancy.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified but not verbose, earning a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool lacks essential context. It does not explain what the procedure does, what it returns, or how it compares to siblings. Completeness is poor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 applies. No additional semantic info is needed, but the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Step-by-step procedure for automatic mouse calibration' gives a general idea but lacks specificity. It does not clearly state the outcome or distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'skill_auto_calibrate' and 'skill_calibrate_mouse_workflow'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple calibration-related siblings, the absence of usage context makes it hard for an AI to select correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.